Try the political quiz

25.8k Replies

@B4CS3NDWomen’s Equality from California answered…3wks

@B4B6NV7Justice party member from Maryland answered…3wks

No, the balance of power would be upset, and we would have a Vietnam problem again.

@Jason-GWorking Familyfrom Maine  answered…4wks

I would not trust the safety and security of any persons with Congress. Everything turns into a fight with party lines drawn. At the same time, one man (President) should probably not have unchecked power to send our military into conflict...whether that conflict is a traditional war or non-traditional.

@B49P9H7Working Family from Florida answered…4wks

Yes, only when it comes to time limited situations, such as verified locations of high level targets.

@B494GRGIndependent from Colorado answered…4wks

I do not think the president or congress should have as big of a role in deciding if we attack al queda.

@B45HJL7Democrat from California answered…1mo

@B44GMDLPeace and Freedom from Pennsylvania answered…1mo

@B43QLDLConstitution from Pennsylvania answered…1mo

NO, That is REQUIRED of Congress to do so ACCORDING to Article IV Section 4 Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution and Article II Section 1.

@B42SJL7Constitution from Utah answered…1mo

@B42MS77Transhumanist from Oklahoma answered…1mo

I think there should be checks and balances on this because the president could easily say something is related to terrorist attacks

@B3T2LMNRepublican from Ohio answered…2mos

The president should be able to act to defend the country, but not attack until congress decides

@B3SFQVNDemocrat from Texas answered…2mos

The President has the right to do this without Congressional approval but I don't think its correct.

@B3S272HDemocrat from Utah answered…2mos

To protect US interests, property or US citizens the President should be able to act immediately. To go to war the President should need Congressional approval.

@B3FCVZRAmerican Solidarity from Minnesota answered…2mos

@B3FCK9LLibertarian from Minnesota answered…2mos

@B3F39V4Constitution from Texas answered…2mos

Yes, but only small-scale operations that don't require long-term deployments of troops. Anything over 1 week should require congressional authorization.

@9J84S85American Solidarity from Illinois answered…2yrs

Their should be more than one individual handeling a situation like this as well as agreeing to a situation like this because whether we like it or not their are consequences.

@9J7W3QNDemocrat from Virginia answered…2yrs

No, Congress should have the opportunity to vote before authorization of military force. However, there should be a time limit and if not met the President can authorize.

@9J7CBXVLibertarian from Utah answered…2yrs

President shouldn't be able to declare war, but should be able to do limited action

@9J78YXSTranshumanist from Georgia answered…2yrs

Yes, but not if the action could potential force a declaration of war.

@9J746LQRepublican from Maine answered…2yrs

Normally I’d say no but we don’t have a functional Congress

@9J6QZ5TTranshumanist from Alabama answered…2yrs

@9J6NLVTTranshumanist from Kentucky answered…2yrs

The president should be able to take immediate action, but anything requiring prolonged military action should be approved by Congress.

@9J5PD25Working Family from Minnesota answered…2yrs

Depends on the situation. In general no, but in an emergency, yes.

@9J5NS3VWorking Family from Texas answered…2yrs

No, but Congress should issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal against non-state terrorist and criminal organizations.

@9HZ4MLCSocialist from New Jersey answered…2yrs

I honestly think this polarized view on one leader. And Democrat or republican is so old and polarized. I think the people should really have a say as a whole

@9HZ3HJ3Working Family from California answered…2yrs

Yes, only if lives are at stake, not for individual benefit; otherwise, congress should approve of attack operations so the individual benefit cannot occur.

@9HZ34KGLibertarian from California answered…2yrs

no, we shouldn't be in any war period. just killing innocent lives on both sides in the process

@9HZ2JG2Constitution from California answered…2yrs

No because it would increase the Presidents power between the 3 between branch’s of government but congress in my opinion holds more power so I would still keep it for congressional approval

@9HYWJP2Women’s Equality from Florida answered…2yrs

Yes because Congress takes too long to take action, this is one instance where quicker decision making is needed

@9HYTTY2Independent from Georgia answered…2yrs

Only If American lives are in immediate danger of death, then yes.

@9HYR5TGLibertarian from Virginia answered…2yrs

constitution allos the president to aend troops anywhere in the world for 90 days without approval. aftrr that yes.

@9HYPGSDWomen’s Equality from New York answered…2yrs

While the president has power he can’t just do whatever he wants whenever. The top military officials as well as congress should be involved in decision making to this degree

@9HYLVS7Constitution from California answered…2yrs

If there is a threat overseas and Congress continues to opt out, the president should make the decision.

@9HYBXMPTranshumanist from California answered…2yrs

No, the president is supposed to act as a leader and one thing he must learn to do is share the power which includes any authorization. Plus we should have Congressional approval to avoid the misuse of power and inaccurate decisions.

@9HYBGQWIndependent from Illinois answered…2yrs

Yes the president should and already has the authority to do any kind of action against Al-Qaeda terrorist groups or anyone as a threatening American citizens our way of life and also our allies. The Congress is job is for any military matter is to add a opinion on it they do not have and should not have a right to have any say so in military comfort flex when they don’t do that their main goal it was supposed to be advising not controlling

@9HYB62WTranshumanist from Georgia answered…2yrs

The president should have limited powers in the use of large scale military action, but Congress should have to approve any prolonged engagement over 120 days or so.

@9HXWCRRLibertarian from Texas answered…2yrs

Situational dependent. If immediate threat is imminent yes. If not, use military generals to come up with decision.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...